Reactions are vital to stemming the negative effect: study
It’s no secret a rotten apple can spoil the others in the barrel. But, looked at from a workplace perspective, the stench of that one “bad apple” can overwhelm all the good of team members combined if they don’t react appropriately. That’s the conclusion of a study from the University of Washington in the journal Research in Organizational Behaviour.
Citing numerous studies and research, “How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups” finds the personal experience of working with someone who displays negative behaviours can “consume inordinate amounts of time, psychological resources and emotional energy.”
In fact, the more disagreeable or irresponsible a person is “is a better predictor of a group’s dynamics and outcome than all the rest of the members’ personalities combined,” said William Felps, lead author of the study he co-authored with Terence Mitchell. That’s because bad is stronger than good, said the study, since “negative cognitions, feelings and events produce larger, more consistent and longer-lasting effects compared to the positive.”
A bad apple is defined as “an individual who chronically displays behaviour (that) asymmetrically impairs group functioning” and the study said there are three categories of difficult team behaviours that are likely to spoil the group, if left unchecked:
•withholding of effort (meaning a person doesn’t contribute adequately);
•being affectively negative (“not regulating expressions of feelings to facilitate comfortable interactions”); and
•violating interpersonal norms.
The power of the “interpersonal deviant” also makes a difference on the impact, as he may have seniority or task expertise.
These day-to-day behaviours can cause teammates to experience feelings of inequity, negativity and reduced trust, said Felps and Mitchell, and lead to three common reactions:
•motivational intervention (attempting to change the negative person’s behaviour);
•rejection (removing the negative person); and
•defensiveness.
But while the first two reactions can help prevent a bad apple from spoiling a team, defensiveness can intensify the problem “as teammates either withdraw or lash out in emotionally motivated attempts to protect themselves.
“As a result, group activities such as motivated effort, co-operation, co-ordination, creativity, learning and helpful conflicts are decreased and diminished, eventually resulting in poor group performance, lower well-being and possibly team collapse,” said the study.
Now that they have discovered more about how, when and why, it’s important to come up with solutions, said Felps.
Some people think it’s simply a matter of being honest with the person in question, structuring the work differently or isolating the individual. However, often that “deviant” can be a real asset who “needs to be protected as opposed to prosecuted,” he said.
Managers can also give co-workers a feeling of empowerment and control so they can confront the problem proactively and constructively, said Felps.
“That might do a lot to reduce the defensiveness that leads to spirals of negativity,” he said. “Sometimes other group members start withdrawing, lashing out, and become milder versions of the bad apple.”
It is the responsibility of a leader to take action, said Jocelyn Berard, managing director at DDI Canada, a Toronto-based recruitment firm.
“If they don’t, they’re as much at fault as the bad apple,” he said.
That’s especially true in work environments where employees rely heavily on each other, such as health care, and need to know their manager is ensuring everyone is pulling their weight.
Many employees who have become leaders are uncomfortable addressing these dysfunctional workers and lack the skills to be effective.
“They either avoid it or do it the wrong way,” said Berard.
It’s important that the manager describe the situation to the individual in question, show them the consequences of their negative actions and provide them with a solution.
The evaluation process is another area that can help prevent a spoiled “barrel,” whether for new employees or new positions.
Often managers will consider a person’s skill set or commitment, but leave out of the equation whether or not someone might undermine the workplace, said Felps.
“Our evidence suggests that it affects the bottom line somewhat, so to leave it out completely seems foolhardy,” said Felps.
Employers can get a sense of a person’s interdependencies through 360-degree feedback or a structured interview with psychometrically sound personality tests, he said, and should be cautious of someone who scores really low on conscientiousness or agreeableness.
Berard agrees prevention is a powerful tool and there are many elements of performance and behaviour that can be predicted through the selection process.
DDI uses testing solutions that look into areas such as work-related judgment (such as conflict management, interpersonal competencies, communication and collaboration and motivational competencies) and disposition (looking at behavioural style, such as adaptability, self-efficacy and locus of control).
“Those are good predictors of disruptive behaviour or, on the contrary, a positive approach at work,” he said. “All those items help us minimize the risk or predict the probability an employee will have less destructive behaviours.”
Citing numerous studies and research, “How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups” finds the personal experience of working with someone who displays negative behaviours can “consume inordinate amounts of time, psychological resources and emotional energy.”
In fact, the more disagreeable or irresponsible a person is “is a better predictor of a group’s dynamics and outcome than all the rest of the members’ personalities combined,” said William Felps, lead author of the study he co-authored with Terence Mitchell. That’s because bad is stronger than good, said the study, since “negative cognitions, feelings and events produce larger, more consistent and longer-lasting effects compared to the positive.”
A bad apple is defined as “an individual who chronically displays behaviour (that) asymmetrically impairs group functioning” and the study said there are three categories of difficult team behaviours that are likely to spoil the group, if left unchecked:
•withholding of effort (meaning a person doesn’t contribute adequately);
•being affectively negative (“not regulating expressions of feelings to facilitate comfortable interactions”); and
•violating interpersonal norms.
The power of the “interpersonal deviant” also makes a difference on the impact, as he may have seniority or task expertise.
These day-to-day behaviours can cause teammates to experience feelings of inequity, negativity and reduced trust, said Felps and Mitchell, and lead to three common reactions:
•motivational intervention (attempting to change the negative person’s behaviour);
•rejection (removing the negative person); and
•defensiveness.
But while the first two reactions can help prevent a bad apple from spoiling a team, defensiveness can intensify the problem “as teammates either withdraw or lash out in emotionally motivated attempts to protect themselves.
“As a result, group activities such as motivated effort, co-operation, co-ordination, creativity, learning and helpful conflicts are decreased and diminished, eventually resulting in poor group performance, lower well-being and possibly team collapse,” said the study.
Now that they have discovered more about how, when and why, it’s important to come up with solutions, said Felps.
Some people think it’s simply a matter of being honest with the person in question, structuring the work differently or isolating the individual. However, often that “deviant” can be a real asset who “needs to be protected as opposed to prosecuted,” he said.
Managers can also give co-workers a feeling of empowerment and control so they can confront the problem proactively and constructively, said Felps.
“That might do a lot to reduce the defensiveness that leads to spirals of negativity,” he said. “Sometimes other group members start withdrawing, lashing out, and become milder versions of the bad apple.”
It is the responsibility of a leader to take action, said Jocelyn Berard, managing director at DDI Canada, a Toronto-based recruitment firm.
“If they don’t, they’re as much at fault as the bad apple,” he said.
That’s especially true in work environments where employees rely heavily on each other, such as health care, and need to know their manager is ensuring everyone is pulling their weight.
Many employees who have become leaders are uncomfortable addressing these dysfunctional workers and lack the skills to be effective.
“They either avoid it or do it the wrong way,” said Berard.
It’s important that the manager describe the situation to the individual in question, show them the consequences of their negative actions and provide them with a solution.
The evaluation process is another area that can help prevent a spoiled “barrel,” whether for new employees or new positions.
Often managers will consider a person’s skill set or commitment, but leave out of the equation whether or not someone might undermine the workplace, said Felps.
“Our evidence suggests that it affects the bottom line somewhat, so to leave it out completely seems foolhardy,” said Felps.
Employers can get a sense of a person’s interdependencies through 360-degree feedback or a structured interview with psychometrically sound personality tests, he said, and should be cautious of someone who scores really low on conscientiousness or agreeableness.
Berard agrees prevention is a powerful tool and there are many elements of performance and behaviour that can be predicted through the selection process.
DDI uses testing solutions that look into areas such as work-related judgment (such as conflict management, interpersonal competencies, communication and collaboration and motivational competencies) and disposition (looking at behavioural style, such as adaptability, self-efficacy and locus of control).
“Those are good predictors of disruptive behaviour or, on the contrary, a positive approach at work,” he said. “All those items help us minimize the risk or predict the probability an employee will have less destructive behaviours.”
